There. I said it. And I believe I am right. My only hope for the Obama administration is that their family is like the Clintons, where Bill was much more moderate than his socialist wife who has held nothing but rent-seeking jobs that gravy-trained off her husbands political position.

"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young
people to do," she tells the women. "Don't go into corporate America.
You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers.
Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging
our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to
move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then
your salaries respond." Faced with that reality, she adds, "many of our
bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management."

I already covered the idiocy of my fellow Princeton-Harvard grad's rant on student debt here. And let's be clear: You have absolutely no ground to criticize the state of the economy because kids of middle class black families are not doing well when you are busy counseling them to embrace low-paying jobs over higher-paying ones.

Zach - nope. Their pay just tells us that the supply of people qualified and willing to be social workers exceeds the demand. It doesn't even tell us that they're not qualified to do something more lucrative - only that the supply exceeds the demand. We need McDonald's cashiers and bus station mens' room cleaners, too - we just don't have to pay very much to get them.

Jon

But clearly Kevin, when she says 'need', she infers not that we have to have them, but that there is some shortage that needs to be filled. Zach is indicating, based on the price being set by the market for those types of jobs, that she is not correct.

So, yes, we _need_ McDonald's cashiers... but I don't think we are having trouble finding them. And if we did, their pay would go up.

Zach

"...only that the supply exceeds the demand..."

Right. In other words, contrary to what Obama says, we don't need more young people going into social work. We have too many as it is.

http://www.napataxpayer.org napablogger

Are you assuming she is only talking to black kids? And social workers do pretty well, at least here in California because they are unionized. Just looked up a social worker salary in my county, Napa, it starts at $4000. month, with experience $5500. a month, Supervisor 7500 a month. Not bad.

someone

Fuck that. I'm going to be saving a company $2 million in transportation costs instead. Idiot.

ElamBend

Easy for her to tell people that once her family has become moderately wealthy. Plus, while her husband seemed to follow this path from the after a bit (I'm thinking he probably had low law school debt, also), she went right for the brass ring and stayed there until his campaign.

The problem is that we're interpreting her statement literally, when it was just a slap at HRC.

Mark

Even more importanly, look at the "careers" that these people advocate; social work, teaching. I am not saying that these are not important, but what do they produce? WHy bother to "teach" a person if they are not going to be a productive member of society?

Here is what we really need more of: plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and most important entrepeneurs.
Further, lets look at one of the "careers" that Michelle Obama points out: Nursing. It is true that we need more nurses. However, the labor unions and other groups have essentially conspired to limit the number of nursing graduates that this country produces. The number of college slots dedicated to nurses is artifically set to be lower than what the "demand" for nursing careers is so that the existing nurses can make more money.

Obama's policies LIMIT all of the things that the country needs. THe free market shows through prices what types of labor is needed. Yet it Obama is an advocate of higher taxes that will reduce entrepenerial growth and the CHAMPION of union labor practices that limits the supply of the work force in critical positions.

It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on their part when they pass this rhetoric on. In fact, the number one priority for making poor people less poor, in the United States and around the world, is that their is a lack of capital. Only through real investment capital can we become richer. Capital is what creates jobs, homes, and the careers to manage them. The Socialist pursue policies that hinder the accumulation of capital and keep the poor poor.

Mesa Econoguy

Not only is Michelle Obama a socialist, sheâ€™s also an elitist, guilt-ridden limousine liberal asshole:

"â€œI know weâ€™re spending â€” I added it up for the first time â€” we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, weâ€™re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,â€

Oooohh, oooohhh, oooohhh, what are we to do?

"In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obamaâ€™s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office. And that does not count the money Mrs. Obama receives from serving on corporate boards."

It would be a difficult business if the choice were between Michelle and Hillary. (P.S. why do you Americans tend to fuss about Presidents' wives? "First Lady" and all that. Other advanced countries don't, do they?)

to be completely "racist" and honest. She is a typical black woman. If she had a billion $ it would not be enough. We have to help the poor as long as you don't touch my money. She is after money and power.

John Dewey

dearieme: "why do you Americans tend to fuss about Presidents' wives? "First Lady" and all that. Other advanced countries don't, do they?"

Well, this is a television age. My guess is that the U.S., because of its enormous wealth, has much more money to spend on "news" reporting. Also, the presidential family is as close to royalty as we permit ourselves.

To be fair, though, political and royalty wives from other nations have received as much or more attention as have U.S. first ladies:

Those are the few that quickly come to mind. All received more attention than have Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Rosalyn Carter, or Patricia Nixon.

http://www.buffalog.blogspot.com Craig

"P.S. why do you Americans tend to fuss about Presidents' wives? "First Lady" and all that. Other advanced countries don't, do they?)"

Actually, they do. Seems to me that Cherie Blair and the just-prior-to-being-dumped Mme. Sarkozy were quite often in the news. It's not foolish to assume that a president's wife reflects his views to a degree and will have influence over his decisions. When she says something outrageous, it merits attention.

Practical_Econ

Wow - Coyotie! You are one easily offended guy. Asking people to do public service and help others is a bad thing? Really? Is that someone who is a socialist? Should we train them to push people into traffic on 36th and Broadway?

Forrest Miller

She may be a socialist, but he is a communist - red to the core. He will bring this great country along with the leftist congress to its knees - Carter had this country at 18 % interest rates and double digit unemployment rates in his short four year term. The current democratic congress has already driven unemployment up by 20% and wrecked to economy to the lowest levels in 20 years in just 18 months of running the place. Wait till we get four years of their crap.

Schroeder

I resent Ms. Obama's "Be social workers." "Be a nurse." After 32 years of "being a nurse", I will say that it was not my first choice of occupations. I became a nurse because it was an occupation for which there is a consistent "need". Of course, it is a "needed" job, but it is a very difficult job; the burnout rate is enormous and I see many of the youger nurses going into other fields other than nursing or leaving the bedside and stepping up into management.

I now, have a "living" wage", but I cannot say I would recommend people going into this field. It is phsically and psychologically demanding, many times exhausting. After all is said, however, I truly care about my patients and any one would want me as their care-giver because I am a huge patient advocate and am not at all afraid to stand up to other personnel including physicians if I believe something is wrong for my patiens.

As far as unions are concerned, I am anti-unionization for nurses. There are areas of the country in which nurses are organized, but the last thing I want is a union putting my union dues where I do not want them. There is a "right to work" ammendment here in our state right now and you bet I am voting For it. I do not want some union boss standing over me telling me how to do my job. This is supposed to be a profession, not an assembly line.

I have been in the process of starting my own business and now have an idea that I may be able to patent related to that business, but if the Obamas are elected, I will most likely not pursue it because the risk/reward factor will be too severely altered. But then Ms. Obama would be happy because I will continue to "be a nurse" (and be stuck in a capped salary situation).

Maybe we could all become community oraganizers, but oh dear, where is our salary going to come from, hmmm, where it has to from, the citizens. There is a dangerous thread in the Obamas' speech. It bespeaks of "community service" throughout and "volunteerism". I personally believe in true volunteerism. I can see the day when we are forced to "volunteer" but that is an oxymoron is it not?

I have a suggestion, Ms. Obama, why don't you becomae a nurse, but then your salary would be cut and I'm sure c]you current lifestyle would be affected.

Maybe she and her socialist husband should read the book "Do as I Say, Not as I Do" by Peter Sweizer, but then they could be the stars of that book, no??